 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Anim, Pito, Walo � Patay si Angelo By Antonio C. Abaya Written Sept. 01, 2004 For Manila Standard September 02 issue According to a story by Christine F. Herrera in the Aug. 31 issue of the Manila Standard, there were only 1.5 million indios in these islands in 1799. (The indios did not become �Filipinos� until the American occupation, �Filipinos� then being a term reserved for Spaniards who were born in the Philippines.) Our population more than doubled to 3.8 million by 1850, or 51 years later. It doubled again to 7.64 million by 1903, or 53 years later, and reached 10 million by 1918. By 1948, or 30 years later, our population almost doubled to 19.25 million. The Standard story did not say what our population was in 1978, but assuming that it was still doubling every 30 years, it must have been around 40 million. Then that should double in the next 30 years to 80 million by 2008. But it is only 2004, and our population is already 84 million. That means it is now doubling even faster, about every 26 years. Unless the present growth rate of 2.36 goes down drastically, there will be 168 million Filipinos by 2030, 336 million by 2056, 672 million by 2082, and 1.344 billion by 2108. It will be Standing Room Only on Laguna de Bay, which will be dry by then from the daily flushing of 672 million Filipino toilets, as a new Rizal may predict when he writes another �The Philippines: A Century Hence.� In February 1997, President Fidel Ramos announced with a straight face that, having achieved kuno his administration�s goal of making the Philippines a NIC (or newly industrialized country) by the year 2000 (which many will dispute), he was now gearing up the country for the year 3000. I wrote a column about this titled �Philippines 3000 � Ready for 205 Billion Pinoys?� (Philippine Star, Feb. 17, 1997). I wrote that even if the population growth rate were to decline from 2.3 to 2.0, there would still be 122.9m Filipinos by 2025, and 201.7m by 2050. If the growth rate were to decline further to 1.7 after 2050, there would still be 307.4m by 2075. And if it were to decline again to 1.3 after 2075, there would still be 424.6m Filipinos by 2100. President Ramos probably meant 2100, not 3000. But even assuming that he or his dumb speechwriter meant that, what could he possibly have done in 1997 to benefit 424.6 million Filipinos in the year 2100? At any rate, I continued my calculations on what the population would be in 3000, assuming the growth rate dropped to 1.0 after the year 2100. At that rate, the population would be doubling every 100 years or so. So our 424.6m Filipinos in 2100 will be 849.2m by 2200, 3.2 billion by 2400, 12.8 billion by 2600, 51.2 billion by 2800, and 204.8 billion by the year 3000. Is there a way out of this? Fortunately, there may be one. The Swift-Tuttle comet will cross into Planet Earth�s orbit around August 2117 and the chances of a planet-comet collision are probably moderate. Of course, such a collision will likely extinguish all life on a splintered Earth, but then who wants to be alive in such an over-crowded planet. The rich countries with almost zero population growth rates at present will in 2100 still have room to spare for their pampered populations to continue playing tennis and nonchalantly sitting in sidewalk cafes sipping their Pernods. But illegal immigrants will be trying to sneak in by the impoverished millions from Black Africa, the Muslim world (which will have no more oil by then), South Asia and the Philippines. According to an Associated Press story by Genaro Armas, which appeared in the Aug. 18 issue of Today, by the year 2050 Japan will have decreased in population by 20%, Italy by 10%, Germany by 9%, Russia by 17%, from their present numbers. On the other hand, also by the year 2050, Nigeria is expected to almost triple its population from 124m to 307m, Bangladesh from 147m to 280m, Indonesia from 220m to 308.5m. By 2050, India will have overtaken China as the most populated country, from 1.1b to 1.6b people. China�s population is expected to peak in 2025 and then start to decline to 1.4b by 2050. As per my projection above, the Philippines will have about 330m by 2050. The US, alone among all industrial countries, will see its population increase by 43%, from 293m to 420m, mainly because of its large Black and Latino minorities. The global population is expected to increase by 45% from 6.3b to 9.3b by 2050. But the rich countries will grow by only about four percent, the poorer ones by an overwhelming 55%. Of that 9.3b population, 8.0b will be inhabitants of desperately poor countries. The purpose of this little exercise in arithmetic is to emphasize that not only the Philippines, but the entire world, has to attain zero or almost-zero population growth rates long before the year 2100, if we want future generations to inherit a habitable planet. And this can be achieved only through the use of artificial methods of birth control, whatever new technologies may be developed in the future. Vatican Roulette is just not a viable option. A Catholic reactor to my population articles has faulted me for neglecting the role of education in bringing down population growth rates. But I argue that it boils down to the same thing. Educated people generally have fewer children than the ignorant because they know about artificial methods of birth control and usually have no moral hang-ups about using them.. Even the predominantly Roman Catholic countries in well-educated Europe have almost zero population growth rates, as I pointed out in my article, �Isa, Dalawa. Tama Na!� (archived in www.tapatt.org), and this they have achieved through the use of artificial methods of birth control, not through the practice of Vatican Roulette. Devoutly Catholic Poland (pop 39m), for example, produces 60 million rubber condoms a year. Contrary to possible ethnic jokes that this stat may inspire, the Poles do not use these condoms as balloons in children�s parties.***** The bulk of this article appears in the Sept. 02, 2004 issue of the Manila Standard. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �Anim, Pito, Walo. Patay si Angelo.� Dear Sir Abaya, The population figures that you cited - all of them - points to your own conclusion that the well-developed and well-educated countries have their population growth consistently lower than the poorer countries. It is because with industrialization, economic prosperity, and education, population growth is consequently slower and fertility is spontaneously "lower" - don't ask me why. The spontaneous reduction in fertility has something to do with mind, body and soul coordination. Reduction in fertility is not due to "less sexual activity" resulting in slower population growth. If you can research further about less or slower population growth in well-developed and economically-prosperous country, you will find that your figures are essentially correct. Again, population control is like a band-aid over a wound that exacerbates as long as it keeps covered. In the same comparison, poverty is a wound that dehisces, exacerbates and is believed to be band-aided by anti-population bills "to control it", short of saying "stop or reduce poverty" in poor countries like the Philippines? Where is economic recovery seen in this process of deductive logic? Like anaerobic bacteria, they proliferate best in areas not exposed to air, to the sun but in dark places. Wounds of poverty need to be exposed to air so it can breathe, improve its quality, its capability to be productive and regenerate in wholesome ways. Soon the environment of progress and consistent exposure to where it will not grow and prosper, those anaerobic bacteria (elements that exacerbate the wound of poverty) will perish. Rather, the Philippine Government should concentrate on efforts to improve the standard of living of the poor, provide employment and jobs, increase knowledge and skills to do work, provide opportunities for self-sufficiency, provide tools and modern equipment to increase productivity, free education, and solicit the expertise of professionals from well-developed nations, and - STOP FOREIGN BORROWING!!!!!!!!!!/ Elsa Bayani, [email protected] September 02, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi, Tony "A Catholic reactor to my population articles has faulted me for neglecting the role of education in bringing down population growth rates. But I argue that it boils down to the same thing. Educated people generally have fewer children than the ignorant because they know about artificial methods of birth control and usually have no moral hang-ups about using them." No, it does not boil down to the same thing. I agree that educated people generally have fewer children but I disagree that they have fewer children only because they use artificial methods of birth control. While it may be true that a lot of educated people use artificial methods, it is also true that some of the educated people use the natural methods. One does not need to resort to artificial methods to reduce the number of children. Even before artificial methods were known, there were already many parents practicing birth control through spacing of births. On the other hand, even if you put all the condoms in the world in a depressed area like Smokey Mountain, I am willing to wager with you that if the people there remain uneducated, they will not touch these condoms at all. So it does not boil down to the same thing. And why do you behave as if artificial methods were the only way to reduce population growth rate? Natural methods can be as effective. The fact of the matter is, the natural method even has its advantages. First it is free. Second, it builds the character of the person because he is able to practice better self control. Third, it may even be more effective because one simply does not perform the act. Fourth, it develops a culture of life and not death. Look at where all the western countries are heading. From contraception to abortion to infanticide to euthanasia. They are now having problem of unproportionally high population of overage people. Many years from now, don't be surprise if the senior citizens in the western countries will simply be executed because there will be no young people to take care of them. And after the old people, the less fit, the intellectually inferior, the ugly will all be exterminated. Governments of developed countries are giving incentives to the young couples to have children, but do you think they will bite? When I was in Norway, the senior citizens were complaining that their children do not want to have children because they find them simply a burden on their life, their career. In short a nuisance and an added expense. The contraceptive mentality is simply irreversible. When you play God, you will suffer the consequences. The problem is, you don't believe in God. Regards. Bobby Tordesillas, [email protected] September 02, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I saw on History Channel the history of Easter Island. When the island could not contain people no more they ate each other. Let's start making lechon of all the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Ross Tipon, [email protected] September 04, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Gordon�s Lopsided View of History (Copy furnished) Dear Editor: [email protected], The following declaration of Mr. Richard Gordon just shows that he does not really know the History of Intramuros, nor of Manila, nor of the Philippines in general. What is worse is that he has a loopsided view of Philippine History in general as evidenced by the alluded to Museum at Intramuros and his pronouncements: Gordon said: "Intramuros was the Walled City built by the Spaniards to keep ordinary Filipinos out, not only physically. Intramuros was the Walled City built by the Spaniards to keep ordinary Filipinos out, not only physically. The walls were used to harass and intimidate us, leaving us feeling eternally victimized and mired in our own petty bickerings. It was Rizal who broke through that wall." (quoted from Mr. Volta's article in Inquirer) For one, Dr. Benito Legarda, in a Free Press article pointed out the names of Filipinos, and Filipino-Chinese, who owned lots and houses inside Intramuros during Spanish times. They were living inside Intramuros with their likewise Filipino help and employees. And the fact that ordinary Filipinos came and went inside Intramuros is evidenced by many books written in Spanish during Spanish times by authors like Vidal Soler, Alvarez Guerra, Pablo Feced, Fernando Entrala and Francisco de Ca�amaque to mention but a few who were never read in their original by Mr. Gordon. The very fact that Galleons docked behind the Intendencia Bldg near the present Immigration office made access to Intramuros open to all Filipinos and Chinese Filipinos of that time. Who would load and unload goods placed in those ships? The Spaniards themselves? What about the Christian Parian inside Intramuros manned by Chinos Cristianos and native Filipinos? Has Mr. Gordon read the accounts of Bishop Salazar about how Indio Filipinos and Chinos Cristianos supplied the daily needs of all Intramuros households. Even a biased and bigoted Protestant Missionary who steyed in Intramuros, Earl Stevens, during the late Spanish Era, does not write such inaccuracies like "Intramuros was the Walled City built by the Spaniards to keep ordinary Filipinos out, not only physically. The walls were used to harass and intimidate us, leaving us feeling eternally victimized and mired in our own petty bickerings." Was it not precisely the American WASPs that precisely kept Filipinos like Emilio Aguinaldo out of Intramuros in 1898, 1899? It was also the "liberating Americans" of 1946 that dis-allowed the Intramuros residents to rebuild their original homes inside Intramuros, during the "liberation era", because they did not want a Spanish-speaking Filipino community to continue existing in the Philippines. This is the testimony of one surviving Intramuros resident, Francisco Gonz�lez, recently interviewed (2003). Of course there were residential enclaves in Intramuros were a courteos form of security was enforced in a manner that would look even elegant in comparison to the security now enforced in many Makati, Mandaluyong, Quezon City, etc. residential subdivisions where ordinary Filipinos are not easilly allowed in unless fully identified and frisked. What about the former U.S. bases at Olongapo and Clark. Did they not fence out Filipinos and even shoot them because mistaken as pigs? What about the massacre of one million six hundred thousand Filipinos (1,600,000) by the invading American forces between 1898 and 1907 when the Philippines only had 9,000,000 inhabitants? What about the carting away of the gold and silver reserve of the 1898 Filipino Republic (worth over 100 Billion U.S. dollars of that time and accumulated from 215 years of the Galleon trade) after the fall of Malolos in the hands of the invading U.S. WASP forces? Why is this gargantuan plunder against Filipinos not included in that "History Museum" built by Mr. Richard Gordon? In the end, why only dwell on the negative part of the Spanish Era and totally omit the much more negative Era that followed it? Is this the "history" frame of mind of one who presumably wanted to boost Philippine tourism (and not his electioneering agenda) through that so-called Museum at Intramuros? And, why is international tourism a near dying industry in this country in spite of so much WOW? Just asking. Guillermo G�mez Rivera Former History professor at Adamson U September 05, 2004 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |